Kumar E.S. (ed.) Integrated Waste Management. V.I

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Governance Crisis or Attitudinal Challenges?

Generation, Collection, Storage and Transportation of Solid Waste in Ghana

Boadi, K. O. & Kuitunen, M. (2003). Municipal Solid Waste Management in the Accra

Metropolitan Area, Ghana. The Environmentalist, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 211–218.

Daily Graphic (2005). Daily Graphic, Saturday 26 April, 2005, Accra, Ghana, pp. 21–28. Daily

Graphic, (2005). Daily Graphic, 3

November, 2005, Accra, Ghana, pp 14.

Doan, P.L. (1998). Institutionalizing Household Waste Collection: The Urban Environmental

Management Project in Cote d’Ivoire. Habitat International, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 27-39.

Fobil, J.; Armah, N.; Hogarh, J.; &. Carboo, D. (2008). The Influence of Institutions

Organizations on Urban Waste Collection Systems: An Analysis of Waste

Collection System in Accra, Ghana (1985–2000). Journal of Environmental

Management, Vol. 86, No. 1 pp. 262-271.

Houber, A. L. (2010). Moving Towards Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Accra:

Bridging the Formal-Informal Divide. Dissertation, Amherst College,

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) (2010a). Environmental

Health and Sanitation Directorate. National Environmental Sanitation Strategy and

Action Plan (NESSAP) 2010-2015, Government of Ghana.

Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development (MLGRD) (2010b). Environmental

Sanitation Policy 2009 (Revised 2010). Government of Ghana.

Mwesigye, P.; Mbogoma, J.; Nyakang'o, J.; Afari, I.; Kapindula, D.; Hassan, S. & Van Berkel,

R. (2009). Africa Review Report on Waste Management - Main Report - Integrated

Assessment of Present Status of Environmentally-Sound Management of Wastes in

Africa. Proceedings of United Nations Economic and Social Council (Economic

Commission for Africa), Sixth Session of the Committee on Food Security and Sustainable

Development, Addis Adaba, Ethiopia.

Narayana, T. (2008). Municipal Solid Waste Management in India: From Waste Disposal to

Recovery of Resources. Waste Management Vol. 29, No.3, pp. 1163 – 1166. Available

from www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman.

Obirih-Opareh, N. (2003). Solid Waste Collection in Accra: The Impact of Decentralization

and Privatization on the Practice and Performance of Service Delivery, A study

conducted at the Amsterdam Research Institute for Global Issues and Development Studies

(AGIDS), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Oteng-Ababio, M. (2007). Private-Public Partnership in Solid Waste Management in the

Greater Accra Metropolitan Area. PhD Dissertation, University of Ghana, Legon.

Oteng-Ababio, M. (2010a). Private Sector Involvement in Solid Waste Management in the

Greater Accra Metropolitan Area. Waste Management & Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp.

322-329.

Oteng-Ababio, M. (2010b). E-waste: An Emerging Challenge for Solid Waste Management in

Ghana; International Development Planning Review, Vol. 32, No. 2 pp. 191-206.

Phillip, D. R. (1984). Health Care in the Third World, Longman, Scientific and Technical. pp.

183-184.

Phillip, D. R. (1981). Contemporary Issues in the Geography of Health Care, Northwich, Norfork,

Geography Books.

Post, J. (1999). The Problems and Potentials of Privatizing Solid Waste Management in

Kumasi, Ghana. Habitat International

, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 201-216.

United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UN-HABITAT), (2010). Collection of

Municipal Solid Waste in Developing Countries. UN-HABITAT.

Integrated Waste Management – Volume I

United Nation Population Fund (UNFPA) (2009). State of World Population 2009, 26.03.2010,

Available from http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2009/en

Water Research Institute (WRI) (2000). Facts and Figures, Environmental Dal Tables, 04.03.2000.

World Bank (2007). Ghana Country Environmental Analysis, Report No. 36985 – GH, 2.

11.2007.

Institutional Matrix for Sustainable

Waste Management

Peter Appiah Obeng and Joseph Boateng Agyenim

University of Cape Coast

Ghana

1. Introduction

1.1 Background information

Ensuring environmental sustainability is one of the eight Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) adopted by world leaders in 2000. This underscores the priority the world places on

achieving and maintaining a clean and safe environment for both present and future

generations. Waste management is therefore a subject of immense interest to all nations and

peoples.

Significant differences, however, characterise waste management service delivery in

developed and developing countries. Though the developed countries generate larger

amounts of wastes, they have developed adequate facilities and strong institutions to

manage them. Developing countries, on the other hand, are faced with an uphill task of

providing adequate facilities for waste management and to ensure their sustainable

operation and maintenance. The Millennium Development Goals Report for 2007 notes that

half the population of the developing world lack basic sanitation and that in order to meet

the MDG target, an additional 1.6 billion people will need access to improved sanitation

over the period 2005-2015 (United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs

[UNDESA], 2007; World Water Development Report [WWDR], 2009). The delivery of

sustainable waste management services in developing countries has therefore become an

issue of grave global concern.

In line with the United Nations’ blueprint for sustainable development, Agenda 21 (United

Nations Division for Sustainable Development [UNDSD], 1992), which recommends support

for developing countries as a step towards the agenda, a number of developing countries have

requested the collaboration of external support agencies in improving environmental

sanitation services delivery. To achieve the MDGs in the poorest and most disadvantaged

countries, the United Nations (UN) recognises the need for developed countries to deliver on

longstanding commitments to achieve an official development assistance (ODA) target of 0.7

per cent of gross national income (GNI) by 2015 (UNDESA, 2007). However, many project

interventions in direct waste management service improvement by external support agencies

have failed to provide lasting positive impacts on the state of environmental sanitation in the

recipient developing countries (Menegat, 2002). Many have failed to continue activities after

the external support agencies ceased their support (Ogawa, 2000; Pronk, 2001). Several

authorities have pointed to the strength of the institutional structures and arrangements as a

key underpinning factor to sustainable development in water and sanitation (Department for

International Development [DFID], 1998; World Bank, 2000; Antipolis, 2000; Ogawa; 2000).

Integrated Waste Management – Volume I

According to the DFID, the central lesson learned from the strong emphasis laid on the

construction of new facilities in the 1980s and 90s is that, simply building new facilities does

little to help the poor. “Projects that end with the construction phase inevitably fall into

disrepair and disuse unless hardware installation is fully integrated with properly planned

and implemented arrangements for the long-term operation, maintenance and financing of

an improved service” (DFID, 1998: 118). This, the DFID explains, is because poor

management of facilities leads to declining service levels, which in turn reduce the chances

of good cost recovery in terms of both willingness-to-charge and willingness-to-pay (Heller

et al, 2003; Wunder, 2005; Pagiola et al, 2005). Invariably, governments and municipal

authorities are unable to ensure efficient operation and maintenance, let alone, to ensure

that investment in the sector keeps pace with the increasing demand.

1.2 The problem

In spite of the inescapable connection between institutions and the attainment of

sustainability in waste management, sections of the engineering and technical professionals

commonly involved in the practice of waste management tend to possess a distorted view of

the concept of institutions and are therefore susceptible to over simplifying the concept or

ignore sensitive aspects which eventually affect the viability of the whole institutional

framework. A common misconception is the equation of institutions to organisations

whereas, in reality, the latter is only an aspect of the former. Beside this, the consideration of

institutional issues has often been limited to the formal segment, oblivious of the crippling

effect which informal institutions exert on the whole institutional framework. Consequently,

efforts at developing institutions to pursue sustainable waste management tend to produce

institutional interventions which fail to adequately respond to the root factors that

determine whether or not service delivery will be sustainable. With reference to developing

countries, in particular, the questions this chapter seeks to answer relate to what basic

understanding of the concept of institutions technical waste management professionals need

to guide them in the development of responsive institutional interventions required to

ensure sustainability in waste management services, and the relationships between the

institutional matrix and the prospects of sustainability in waste management.

1.3 Chapter objective and approach

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the institutional matrix within which waste

management services are rendered to explain key institutional issues which underpin the

chances of attaining sustainability in service delivery – with special emphasis on developing

countries. This is intended to equip technical waste management professionals with a basic

understanding of the concept of institutions required to inform a holistic approach to the

task of institutional development in the sanitation sector, and to make them appreciate how

institutional issues affect sustainability in all of its dimensions.

The arguments and concepts presented in this chapter are drawn from literature and the

knowledge and experiences of the authors. Reference is often made to cases in Ghana where

a practical illustration is considered useful.

2. Understanding institutions

A successful application of institutional development as a tool for attaining sustainability in

waste management service delivery requires a proper understanding of the concept of

Institutional Matrix for Sustainable Waste Management

institutions due to its complexity, especially, in the developing world. There is no doubt that

in everyday language the term ‘institution’ is used interchangeably with the term

‘organisation’ as in such uses as ‘academic institutions’, ‘financial institutions’ and the likes.

Nevertheless, a clear distinction is made between organisations and institutions in literature

(Bandaragoda, 2000; Young, 2002; Alaerts, 1997; Uphoff, 1986; Pai & Sharma, 2005). The

other dimension that exists in the use of the word is rather sociological and not as yet

understood by sections of the engineering and technical professionals frequently

encountered in the environmental sanitation sector. This dimension reflects in such uses as

‘the institution of marriage’, ‘the chieftaincy institution’ and ‘the institution of priesthood’, which

are not necessarily organisations.

According to North (1990: 4), institutions are “formal rules, informal constraints - norms of

behaviour, conventions, and self imposed codes of conduct - and their enforcement

characteristics”. The DFID (1998: 154) elaborates North’s definition. According to the DFID,

while an institution may be defined as “a set of constraints and humanly devised rules

which influence and shape the interaction and behaviour among groups and individuals” –

akin to North’s definition – it may also refer to an individual organisation, i.e. “an

individual body with an explicit structure and hierarchy of authority and the formal

allocation of tasks and responsibilities”. These bodies with an explicit structure and

hierarchy of authority – i.e. organisations – enforce rules, norms, conventions and codes

whether formal or informal. The emphasis, however, is that the term ‘institution’, does not

necessarily refer to an organisation but, first and foremost, refers to a set of rules and

arrangements existing in society to influence and shape interaction and behaviour among

groups and individuals (North, 1990; Kingston & Caballero, 2008). For the avoidance of

confusion, DFID (2003) distinguishes between institutions and organisations as suggested

by North: it refers to institutions as ‘the rules-of-the-game’ and organisations as ‘how we

structure ourselves to play’, adding that the key distinction between institutions and

organisations is that between rules and players.

From this point onwards in this chapter, a conscious effort is made not to use the two bed-

fellow terminologies interchangeably. ‘Institution’ shall be used for the ‘rules-of-the-game’

and ‘organisation’ for bodies or ‘the players’ unless where ‘institution’ is used to represent

the totality of the ‘rules’ and the ‘players’ as in cases where mention is made of the

‘institutional structure’ or ‘institutional framework’ which encompasses both the rules and

the players.

It is worth mentioning that the isolation of one interpretation from the other is practically

impossible as the existence of one often elicits the other. For instance, the promulgation of “a

set of rules to influence and shape the interaction and behaviour among groups and

individuals” (DFID, 1998: 154) often leads to the creation of bodies or organizations –

whether in the form of committees, commissions or agencies – to implement, administer or

enforce the set rules. On the other hand, every organisation has its own rules which define

its “hierarchy of authority and the formal allocation of tasks and responsibilities” (DFID,

1998: 154). Thus, institutions are implicit in organisations and the vice versa. In Ghana, for

example, a policy to separate rural water supply and sanitation from urban water supply

and sanitation service delivery led to the creation of the Community Water and Sanitation

Agency in 1998. Meanwhile, it took an act of Parliament to establish the Agency. Thus the

new policy or institutional arrangement necessitated the creation of an organisation whose

Integrated Waste Management – Volume I

establishment in turn called for further legislation from which it derives its “hierarchy of

authority and the formal allocation of tasks and responsibilities”.

3. Institutional matrix for the sanitation sector

The application of a holistic view of the concept of institutions to the sanitation sector

reveals a two-by-two institutional matrix with the two columns representing institutions and

organisations and the two rows partitioning them (institutions and organisations) into

formal and informal hemispheres as shown in Table 1.

Institutions Organisations

Formal

 Policies

 Laws

 Regulations

 Guidelines

 Codes

 Standards, etc.

 Government Ministries, Departments

and Agencies

 Municipal authorities

 Private sector organisations

 Non-governmental organisations

(NGOs)

 External support agencies, etc.

Informal

 Customs

 Beliefs

 Norms

 Values

 Historical experiences

 Practices

 Standards of honesty, etc.

 Traditional leaders

 Pressure groups

 Clans and family gates

 Religious groups

 Social clubs

 Community watchdog committees

 Community-based organisations, etc.

Table 1. Institutional matrix for the sanitation sector

Thus four segments of the matrix can be distinguished, namely formal institutions, informal

institutions, formal organisations and informal organisations, all of which play crucial and

interrelated roles to ensure the overall viability and sustainability of the institutional

framework. It must be mentioned, however, that the structure of the matrix is not peculiar to

waste management or the sanitation sector per se. Almost all sectors of a nation’s economy is

characterised by institutions and organisations – both formal and informal.

3.1 Formal institutions

Formal institutions set the tone for the sector. They are the ‘formal rules’ in North’s

definition, which “influence and shape interaction and behaviour” (Hearne, 2004;

Kingston & Caballero, 2008) among sector stakeholders including service providers, users

and government itself. They come in the form of laws, policies, regulations, guidelines,

codes and standards etc. They also include international treaties and protocols to which

the national government is a signatory. National, state or regional and municipal

authorities usually promulgate them. As the sceptre of governance, their presence or

absence is the most critical factor that determines the level of orderliness or chaos that can

be expected to exist in the waste management industry and the sanitation sector in

general.

Institutional Matrix for Sustainable Waste Management

While each of the segments of the matrix has a potential influence over the others, formal

institutions are the most powerful. This can be explained by the fact that formal

institutions decide which informal institutions or constraints can be adopted, tolerated or

outlawed since governments can restrain by law what is culturally acceptable or

technically feasible. For instance, many developing countries have enacted laws to ban the

use of the pan or bucket latrine, which has been practised by some communities for

several years. Consequently, this option for excreta disposal has given way to better

practices and the organisational framework, both formal and informal, within which it

was carried out has collapsed. Again, many nations have formally outlawed female

genital mutilation, which has been practised by some cultures for centuries. Such is the

strength of formal institutions.

3.2 Informal institutions

Informal institutions can be best described as the unwritten rules which govern behaviour

(Helmke & Levitsky, 2004). These are the unofficial arrangements, which exist in society

or organisations and influence the standard of acceptable or objectionable conduct. They

often manifest themselves in traditions and cultural practices that are performed by the

members of a society. They have been in existence for centuries and are a reflection of the

deep-seated traditional value system of people and can be reflected in the formal

institutional framework of a society (e.g. constitutions, laws, legal mechanisms) (Helmke

& Levitsky, 2004).

In the environmental sanitation sector, informal institutions and constraints are major

determinants of the commitments of various stakeholders to the enforcement of and

compliance with formal institutions (Vogler, 2003). They influence such critical factors as

attitudes to personal hygiene, waste disposal practices, willingness to pay for services,

commitments to public interests and law enforcement, respect for sanitation professionals,

etc. The impact of informal institutions and constraints on the sanitation sector is generally

more pronounced in developing countries than in the developed world, where formal

institutions are much better developed.

While some informal institutions tend to promote best environmental sanitation practices,

others have a tendency to interfere with them (Alaerts, 1997). Traditional or cultural

institutions, which uphold sound environmental practices, are to be harnessed and

integrated into the local institutional arrangements. Where informal institutions conflict

with best practices, formal institutions are used to constrain or outlaw them, but not just by

the might of laws and regulations. This is because changing informal institutions require

much tact, intensive education, stakeholder participation, dialogue and incentives (Hall &

Thelen, 2005) because institutions have a degree of permanence and are relatively stable. It

is also as a result of the fact that institutional change is viewed as a centralized, collective-

choice process (Kingston & Caballero, 2008; Kantor, 1998). In this process, it is argued that

“rules are explicitly specified by a collective political entity, such as the community or the

state, and individuals and organisations engage in collective action, conflict and bargaining

to try to change these rules for their own benefit” (Kingston & Caballero, 2008: 4).

3.3 Formal organisations

Organisations are groups of individuals engaged in purposive activity (North 1990; Saleth,

2006). Described as the ‘players’ (DFID 1998, DFID 2003, North 1990), organisations, in

Integrated Waste Management – Volume I

general, are the primary custodians of institutions as well as the wheels on which they

(institutions) are run.

Formal organisations are those with some form of officially recognised authority. They are

material entities possessing offices, personnel, equipment, budgets, and legal personality

(Bandaragoda, 2000). They are bodies with explicit structure and hierarchy of authority.

Government ministries, departments and agencies, municipal authorities, private

companies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), external support agencies, etc, are

among the formal organisations which play various roles in the delivery of waste

management services within a framework defined by formal institutions. Thus, formal

organisations are subject to formal institutions which may be promulgated by the self-same

organisation. This illustrates the paradox of institutional-organisational relationships:

institutions are evolved by bodies or organisations – be they state departments, ministries,

commissions or the parliament – but all bodies or organisations are themselves built on and

governed by institutions.

Direct waste management service delivery has often been a shared responsibility between

state and private organisations, engendering a wide range of public-private partnerships.

Water and Sanitation for Health [WASH] (1991) notes that the pressures to become more

efficient and effective are changing the role of the government from that of a provider to a

promoter and regulator. For instance, Obeng et al (2009) studied the impact of Ghana’s

Environmental Sanitation Policy on the institutional structures for solid waste management

in Kumasi, the nation’s second largest city. The study found that the major change that had

occurred in the organisational structure for the management of solid waste in the city since

the inception of the policy in 1999 was the involvement of the private sector in service

delivery under the supervision and monitoring of the Waste Management Department

(WMD) of the Metropolitan Assembly (see also Cook & Ayee, 2006).

3.4 Informal organisations

Informal organisations are groups with some common interests or aspirations who may not

be officially established or registered by the national or local government but can be

recognised as stakeholders in the delivery of waste management services due to their

potential to affect the chances of successful service delivery positively or negatively. They

include community-based organisations, pressure groups, opinion leaders, traditional

leaders, gender groups, local religious bodies, etc.

The potential of informal organisations to affect the chances of sustainable service delivery

has gained much attention in recent times, leading to the high emphasis that is currently

laid on effective community participation in service delivery in developing countries

(Menegat, 2002). Stakeholder analysis for community participation helps to identify all

interest groups in the community, assess the conditions for their involvement in order to

attract each group to fully participate in identification, planning and implementation of

sanitation and waste management intervention programmes at the community level.

4. Institutions and sustainability in waste management

4.1 Overview of the concept of sustainability

The concept of sustainability, which literally refers to “the ability to sustain, or a state that

can be maintained at a certain level” (Kajikawa, 2008: 218), arose out of the belief that the

growing population of the world, with the attendant pressure on natural resources, poses a

Institutional Matrix for Sustainable Waste Management

threat to our survival on the earth. Back in 1798, Thomas Malthus argued that unchecked

population growth follows a geometric order while subsistence for man increases

arithmetically. Therefore, in the opinion of Malthus, if human populations and

consumptions are not controlled, the earth would run out of its resources at some point in

time (Malthus, 1798 as cited in Rogers et al, 2008).

This concept, which currently occupies a central position in all developmental issues,

initially attracted the attention of the international community in 1972 when the United

Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm first explored the

relationship between the quality of life and that of the environment (Rogers et al, 2008). As

the interaction between human populations and the environment are essentially the

outcome of our quest for development, the term ‘sustainability’ became more associated

with the term ‘development’ than any other. This has led to the frequent use of the phrase

‘sustainable development’ which was first defined by the World Commission on

Environment and Development (WCED) as “development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

(WCED, 1987: 54).

The concept of sustainability refers to a “dynamic condition of complex systems,

particularly the biosphere of earth and the human socioeconomic systems within it” (Heintz,

2004: 6). The concept draws on the fact that societal development cannot be viewed without

considering its natural prerequisites (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation [UNESCO], 1996). Sustainable development then refers to a pattern of resource

utilisation that seeks to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these

needs can be met in the present as well as in the future (Valverde, 2008). The term has come

to encompass the economic, environmental and social realms (Hasna, 2007). It also includes

the bio-chemical and physical dimensions (Gupta and van der Zaag, 2008).

This has informed the views of sustainability as the ‘triangular view’ which treats

sustainability as being triple-dimensional, with three components addressing the need to

sustain the environment, economy and society (Kajikawa, 2008; Rogers et al, 2008). Thus,

Kajikawa (2008) describes the triangular view as including the three-pillar model in which

the three pillars refer to the economy, the environment, and society (Kastenhofer and

Rammel, 2005) and the triple-bottom-line model (People, Planet, Proﬁt) or P3 (People,

Prosperity, and the Planet) (Zimmerman, 2005). It can be argued then that a sustainable

system or development is one which satisfies environmental sustainability (the

sustainability of the planet), economic sustainability (the sustainability of prosperity or

profit) and social sustainability (the sustainability of the values and cultures of people).

Thus, a sustainable waste management system is one oriented at attaining all three

components of sustainability: environmental, economic and social. It is important that each

of the three components is given equal attention and priority in order to ensure sustainable

outcomes (Rogers et al, 2008).

4.2 Institutions and environmental sustainability in waste management

In simple terms, environmental sustainability implies that human developments or activities

such as waste disposal should not hinder the ability of biological and physical systems to

maintain their ecological resilience or robustness (Rogers et al, 2008). That is, levels of

harvest should be maintained within the capacity of the ecosystem (Kajikawa, 2008). In

Integrated Waste Management – Volume I

waste management, environmental sustainability implies that, the rates of deposition of

pollutants should be maintained within the rate at which the ecosystem can safely absorb or

convert those pollutants to some other useful or harmless substances. Thus, the environment

should only be used as a “waste sink” “on the basis that waste disposal rates should not

exceed rates of managed or natural assimilative capacity of the ecosystem” (Pearce, 1988 as

cited in Rogers et al, 2008: 43). In the design of sanitary landfills, for example, the provision

of a lining material and physical installations to prevent leachate from reaching ground

water resources is intended at enhancing the environmental sustainability of that disposal

option.

Institutions play a vital role in ensuring environmental sustainability in waste management.

This vital role becomes apparent as one reflects on the determinants of environmental

protection such as:

 legislation and regulation to restrain or outlaw waste disposal practices which

adversely affect the environment;

 monitoring and enforcement to detect and punish environmental abuse and

malpractice;

 research to determine the capacity of the environment that can safely absorb different

types of wastes and the technology options by which waste managers can make

optimum use of this capacity.

All aspects of the institutional matrix contribute immensely to ensure that the determinants

of environmental sustainability, including but not limited to those mentioned above, are in

existence.

4.2.1 Formal institutions and environmental sustainability

Formal institutions in the form of laws, regulations, policies, standards and guidelines often

take the lead in the pursuit of environmental sustainability. Examples around the world

include:

 national laws such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (1976) of the

United States (United States Congress [U.S.C.], 1976) and the Hazardous Waste

(England and Wales) Regulations (2005) of the United Kingdom (Statutory

Instruments, 2005);

 regional directives such as those of the European Union, including the Regulation

(1272/2008) on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) of chemicals (European

Union, 2008) and the Directive (2002/96/EC) on waste electrical and electronic

equipment (WEEE) (European Union, 2003); and

 international conventions such as the Basel Convention on the Control of

Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel

Convention, 2010).

Arguably, the worst form of failure in securing the sustainability of the environment is the

absence of formal institutions, at least on paper, to prohibit certain forms of actions and

inactions which threaten the survival of vital ecosystems. Hence, the analysis and diagnosis

of the overall institutional framework is recognised as the first step in the institutional

development process in the water and sanitation sector (DFID, 2003) and, for that matter, in

the field of waste management. One of the major factors which account for the differences in

waste management in the developed and the developing world lies in the existence of